(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kesuvos 70

KESUVOS 70 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson and Naftali Wilk in honor of Rav Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof, a true beacon of Torah and Chesed.


(a) The Tana in a Mishnah in Gitin states that whatever Pe'utos buy or sell is valid.
What are 'Pe'utos'?

(b) To which kind of property does this not apply?

(c) Rafram restricts this Halachah to where there is no Apotropus.
What is an Apotropus?

(d) Rafram proves his point from our Mishnah, which, in the case when a father placed his property into the hands of a third person, concludes 'Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah K'lum'.
How do we know that that ruling is not confined to the Din of a third person, who is given *specific instructions* what to do with the property, but not to an administrator, who is *not*?

***** Hadran Alach 'Metzi'as ha'Ishah' *****

***** Perek ha'Madir *****


(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if a man makes a Neder forbidding his wife to derive any benefit from him for longer than thirty days, he must divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.
What happens if the Neder is for less than thirty days?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah gives the time period as one month for a Yisrael.
What does he say in the case of a Kohen?

(c) The Tana also speaks about a man who made such a Neder forbidding his wife to eat a certain type of fruit even for one day.
What is the case?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say there?

(a) Which third case of Neder does the Tana deal with?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi say in this regard about ...

  1. ... a poor woman?
  2. ... a rich woman?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Nedarim state about a woman who forbids the work of her hands on her husband?

(b) What problem does that pose on the Reisha of our Mishnah?

(c) How do we try to explain our Mishnah, in order to resolve this problem?

Answers to questions



(a) We refute this contention on the grounds of Rav Huna Amar Rav's statement.
What does Rav Huna Amar Rav say?

(b) So how do we finally establish our Mishnah?

(c) In that case, why does she need a trustee to sustain her?

(d) But if she is not producing sufficient on which to live, then what have we answered? Why should his Neder be effective?

(a) Why can the previous case not be speaking about a case ...
  1. ... when she is accustomed to having the small extras?
  2. ... when she is not used to having them?
(b) Then what *is* the case?

(c) Why does the Tana of our Mishnah give a time limit of thirty days, after which he is obligated to divorce her and pay her Kesuvah?

(a) Alternatively, we answer our initial Kashya (how the Neder should be valid in the first place) by establishing the Mishnah when he made the Neder whilst they were still betrothed.
Since when is an Arus obligated to feed his Arusah?

(b) In that case, the Kashya (why is the Neder valid) returns.
How do we answer it?

(c) And why the thirty-day limit?

(a) We attempt to give a third answer - that he made the Neder when they were betrothed and they subsequently married, explaining why the Neder is valid on the one hand, and why he is obligated to feed her on the other. Considering that she knew when she married him that she would not receive Mezonos, why should he then need to feed her through a trustee?

(b) We refute this answer on the grounds that, although we apply a similar S'vara with regard to a man who marries a woman with Nedarim, we cannot apply it here.
Why not?

(a) Ordinarily, the trustee would be carrying out the Sh'lichus of the husband, which would be forbidden (because, based on the principle 'Sh'lucho shel Adam Kemoso', the husband would then be contravening his Neder).
How do we establish our case to avoid this problem?

(b) What will be the Din if a man falls into a deep pit and announces that whoever hears his voice should write a get for his wife?

(c) Why does that present us with a Kashya on our case of 'Kol ha'Zan ... '?

(d) How do we nevertheless differentiate between the two cases?

(a) What did Rebbi Ami say about someone who announces on Shabbos 'Kol ha'Mechabeh Eino Mafsid'!

(b) If Rebbi Ami did not specifically say '*bi'Deleikah* Hitiru Lomar Kol ha'Matzil ... ' to preclude our case of 'Kol ha'Zan ... ', then what *did* he come to preclude with that?

(c) What does the Beraisa permit someone to do, whose friend who has no money for food is forbidden to have any Hana'ah from him (due to a Neder)?

(d) Why does the Beraisa specifically mention the case of the store-keeper? Is it not to preclude the concession of 'Kol ha'Zan ... '?

(a) What does the Beraisa permit a person to do, if his friend who is forbidden to have any Hana'ah from him (due to a Neder), ...
  1. ... cannot afford to have his house or his fence repaired, or to hire workers to harvest his corn?
  2. ... is accompanying him on a journey and has nothing to eat?
(b) What can he do if there nobody to whom to give a gift?

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama in this latter case because of the episode that took place in Beis Choron.
What happened in Beis Choron?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,